Skip to content

Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, and Tor Jørgensen (Part Two)

April 1, 2020

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 22.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Eighteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: April 1, 2020

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 8,646

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, and Tor Jørgensen contributed to this opening session to a series of discussion group responses to questions followed by responses, and so on, between March and May of this year. Total participants observable in [1] with brief biographies. They discuss: the previous session’s responses.

Keywords: Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen.

Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, and Tor Jørgensen (Part Two)[1],[2]*

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Several participants commented on the following prompt:
 
Segmented exploration of the question, “What is going to happen in the near future (2020-2049), middle future (2050-2074), far future (2075-2099), and the indefinite future (22nd-century and beyond)?”  
 
The full prompt became: 
 
Here, we will define the near future from 2020 to 2049, the middle future as 2050 to 2074, the far future to 2075 to 2099, and the indefinite future as 22nd-century and beyond. Obviously, we have about 3 decades in the first options with more ease in predictions for us. Let’s start with some softballs, what seems like the most probable to come true in the near future? Those things most easily, readily following from current trends, the laws of the natural world and within the laws of human societies without a sign of impediment from world events, e.g. natural or human-made catastrophes. When looking at this middle future when many things seeming potentially impossible will be commonplace, and others assumed as inevitable will have been shown impossible, what seems likely and unlikely to continue to happen around the world here? By the end of century, during the far future where many of us may not be alive, how will some of these advancements in science and technology, or changes to the political and social landscape, lead to a vastly different world compared to now, or not? While some things are within our extrapolations, others may be mere whimsical speculation about the future, here I am looking at the 22nd-century and beyond or the indefinite future. What will not happen in our lifetimes, but will happen in the indefinite future? Because this follows from reasonable trendlines at present or exists within the laws of nature while not existing in the current world at all.
 
The first comments can be found here: https://in-sightjournal.com/2020/03/15/hrt-one/. You may comment on the general set of first responses or to an individual response in a respectful and considerate manner in this session, as a response to the responses/comments session. This is conducted between March 16th and March 31st.

 

Christian Sorenson: I will base my comments on the set of responses given. It strikes me that in relation to the different temporal instances regarding the near, medium, far and indefinite future, all of them postulate more or less the same idea, although some make mention of cyclicality. On a differentiated scale is evident “the subliminal belief” of an everlasting and unlimited development embodied in multidimensional ways. Because of this, special emphasis is placed to technological advance, not only in artificial intelligence, medicine, informatics engineering or aerospace research topics, but also in such areas commonly denominated “softer”, as long as they have to do with the multiple possibilities to organize our communities and society. Continuing with this reasoning they address political issues and new forms of a social contract. Reference is also made to cultural evolution, which in this case I will define and classify as “formal” and “material” respectively. By ”material” it will be understood as any human expression which has a tangible instrumental purpose, that is to say that promote, make possible and sustain life in common. The “formal ones” on the other hand, will be all those manifestations that grant identity awareness to individuals and a feeling of belonging to certain groups of peers. In turn, the latter would have to do with the generation of ideational constructs, which modulate normatively and emotionally our interpersonal relationships, and that may or may not be loaded with significances of moral worth. In my opinion, ultimately, these allow us to exist as symbolic and significant subjects. Said in this manner, certainly not only the technology but also other expressions of spiritual and artistic order will be “integrals” since they would be both “formal” and “material” in nature.

This leads to wonder about what would be society’s “nuclear organizations,” and specifically of the family construct as a concept, that was touched at least tangentially by some. Regarding this last, in confrontation to the continuum of time, it is plausible to ask whether this basic emotional bond referent is going to allow or not based on the legacy we already have with the history of humanity, a redefinition that questions its essence and ultimate meaning “ad eternum”… Posing it for its opposite, will the existence of society be possible if family as an entity disappears, even if this is taken to an exercise on a purely logical and theoretical level?

If it is about making “predictive futurologies” in a temporarily segmented future that visualizes the world “as a whole”, in the sense of seeing everything that exists uniformly, then I have no doubt why it is possible to believe in something similar to an “asymptotic development”. Indeed, I believe that “being” is not equivalent to “existing” since apparently everything is definable by its distinctive properties and therefore it is possible to postulate that exists distinctive and materially delimited essential qualities, that last beyond the particularity of each thing and that could be considered analogically as “archetypes”. The fact of not being able to discriminate what is characteristic of each “thing” in relation not only to its “being and existence” but also to its formal unique properties, may be an explanation of why a “supposed demiurge” puts us “on check” once again in history with the moment we live in now. In this “tragicomic parody” it seems that something not only of the nature that surrounds us rebels against ourselves and does not forgive…

Indirectly related with the above I wonder about linearity in the most simple and basic sense possible making an analogy with the line, that is as the closest distance that joins two points in space. Up to here and leaving aside if it is an arithmetic or exponential function, how far we are here in an “imaginary” as can happen with the relativity of time or space, and therefore we are both outside reality and the symbolic world? When you think about the future and progress it gives the impression that it is done linearly and in consequence in a “specular” (facing a mirror) way. Then it’s no wonder that things suddenly seem to “break out,” since what it is faced is just “virtual reality.” I will relate this to the idea that “nothing would be more permanent than change.” If and only if it is assumed that something changes while other remains constant. And then what is the force that mobilizes everything, being it “a failed act” or not? Perhaps “dualism”, but in my opinion not as a “flowing transforming sequence” due to the fact that there is no kind of balance or integrative dynamics that governs it. Maybe neither good nor evil exists as such in the measure everything that exists “should be seen according to what”… In other words, nothing or nobody is “what it intends to be” because there is an essential impossibility “beyond the will to power” in every individual subject to fully express what he is.

Everything seems to indicate that as human beings “we have become too human”… In metaphorical terms we could say that we have been “dancing” with everything for a long time, but now “they are dancing” with us.

James Gordon: For me, maybe the most interesting and yet not too challenging to (attempt to) predict trends are technological ones, which is basically where I started last time, so I will keep going with that. We have a lot of data from how technology has developed so far, and probably most importantly is how fast it has done so. Technology develops, in more or less scientifically predictable ways, which explains why some (not all) science fiction authors have actually been pretty good at predicting the future thus far (though usually they’ve been a little ahead of schedule, e.g. 1984, 2001, etc).

Arguably (but not easy to argue against), the most remarkable developments in modern technology happened as result of quantum mechanics. I’m not an expert on science or anything like that, but my understanding is that pretty much everything we use in the form of computers and so on is the result of Niels Bohr (among many others) following through on quantum mechanics starting about 100 years ago, largely in opposition to Einstein’s clinging to classical mechanics.

Suffice to say, we are going to have exponentially unexpected developments as result of more quantum mechanical technologies. It will be very hard to predict exactly when things will happen, but I think we can get a decent idea of what will or at least may happen. This crazy phenomenon of quantum entanglement has been a proven fact for quite a few years now in a variety of experimental settings, and has become part of scientific canon. Yet there are seemingly pieces missing from these quantum equations and the theory is itself quite baffling on many levels. Again, I don’t know all the ins and outs of it, but I imagine that some very smart people will be able to make things happen for us on a quantum level (in the form of nanotechnology; all microchips were themselves the result of harnessing quantum phenomena, so we’re well on our way to optimizing quantum computing recursively going forward).

So, what might this involve? There could, to go to one extreme, someday be teleportation devices like what you see in Star Trek. Already some (for more or less essential and practical purposes) dematerializing and rematerializing of particles over a distance has been accomplished on a small scale. I think over time it’s reasonable to assume that this could very well be possible with larger objects (and people). Along this wavelength (no pun intended), what will it mean when we can duplicate something, or someone, precisely? I will be looking at myself. I will be aware of what I am. My consciousness will have been split into two. So, the nature of consciousness is going to change completely if/when this happens. I imagine that the same thing will happen on the level of AI. If we can replicate a person precisely in technological form, this will be essentially identical to the person. In at least highly virtualized ways, immortality may itself become possible. But individuality may no longer exist. There could be 100 of you out there, people who look exactly like you. Maybe people will all look the same. That’s just an exaggeration to give you an idea of how things will change when suddenly we can duplicate all kinds of things (which will first happen in virtual settings but in parallel will be developed real life counterparts more slowly). Like with others, first we work with simulations and models and then we go to the real deal.

Yet even before, without going to the “real deal” of flesh and blood, we could theoretically live inside machines and AI forever (a common trope of some popular science fiction novels and films). As long as there is technology and computing power to support it, human life could be replicated in machines, and voila, we are no longer human, yet we are still somehow ourselves. This line between reality and simulation which has already become rather blurred via computer technology will only become increasingly more blurred until we will not be able to differentiate. So, it’s going to be a wild ride (though in this lifetime we may not see anything too “out there”. But our kids probably will, and their kids, and their kids, and so on).

I’m just going to go on a limb with this and say it’s safely in the “far future” category. I think we might be looking hundreds of years in the future or more here, although I’ve seen some predictions from the “avatar project” about what will be possible in our lifetimes. I don’t see us getting there all that quickly. Going back to the teleportation idea, instantaneous travel over distances will likely be possible. It will become as “safe” as any kind of travel we have now, although to us now it sounds horrifying to think of what could go wrong. I think we will eventually get there, a little at a time, by brave souls who are willing to try this stuff out. And there may be some inevitable sad cases that end up like Brundle Fly. Although it may sound a bit contrived, like I said before, I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to reference some (and I emphasize some, not all) popular science fiction books, movies, tv shows, etc. to get a sense for what the far future might look like.

Many things in science fiction probably can’t and won’t happen. For example, I don’t think time travel will happen, at least not on any very significant scale. It just seems too out there to me and makes no sense whatsoever in practical terms, given that we are still here (I think). Faster than light travel I think could happen. Again, this is due to quantum mechanics. Einstein said nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, but apparently quantum particles are instantaneously entangled at a distance, which means they can in fact travel faster than the speed of light. Somehow information is going from one to the other, in an experimental setting it has been shown this information exchange is faster than the speed of light. So, either something is traveling, or there is some kind of unseen “wormhole” or “connection” uniting them that makes them in fact identical to one another. Maybe needless to say, Einstein ran into serious issues making sense of this, and died without arriving at an explanation. However, his ground-breaking ways of understanding relativity, in particular space and time, were instrumental in reconceptualizing modern physics, and we actually have him to thank for quantum mechanics as well, although he couldn’t take it far away from classical mechanics, which to him seemed more stable.

So that’s what we have been harnessing with the development of computers (this extremely fast way that particles move around on a subatomic scale). Breakthroughs in technology and science have always seemed almost magical upon early discovery in respective timeframes. Bohr and others observed that the color spectrum could be seen in distinct strips, rather than blurring together and this was evidence that electrons on an atom will jump from one orbit to the next all at once (a kind of inexplicable teleportation). Anything that a computer can conceivably do now, we can imagine how this is going to exponentiate due to advancements in quantum computing (with particles moving around in instantaneous and entangled ways). The old way of using bits (binary digits) is being phased out for the development of quantum bits. Simultaneous rather than procedural computations will be possible and there is a much higher limit now for what can be done with computers. One of the current developments currently under way is a quantum network that will use entangled particles to create a secure internet that can’t be hacked.

Is it somehow conceivable that particles can be entangled not only over distance but also over time? It’s possible. But we have no evidence of that yet, so we shouldn’t make any assumptions. We do have good evidence that they can be entangled over space and thus many amazing things will be possible as a result of this technology, which we have known for some time. We do know about time dilation involved in space travel and so forth. As far as what that will entail, I don’t think time travel is part of it. After all, we have never seen time-travelling people from the future showing up in our time (or any records of this in the past). We wouldn’t even be here now because people would’ve changed the course of history and wiped us out, unless, of course, this thread we’re on now is the result of some time travel intervention, which I highly doubt. So even if there’s the technology the future, apparently it is never used for bona fide time travel as we understand it. Maybe someday it will be possible to interact with the past somehow through very advanced technology, but what that would look like or involve, I really have no idea.

I would like to also give some attention to future trends in music, art, culture, and so forth. I’m a musician myself and a lover of many kinds of music. I think it’s safe to say that classical music is likely to persist; if you think of how long it has already been around, you can imagine how it will probably sustain for at least that much longer. So, the baroquely anachronistic image of classical musicians playing aboard a space vessel in the year 2500 is illustratively appropriate. The audience for this kind of music will continue to be older people, but may reach younger audiences and become even more mainstream over time. Jazz as well I think (and hope) will stick around for some time, and be continuously prized in the future.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, I believe that electronically synthesized music will also continue to be popular into the far future. Also, I think there will likely always be some variety of pop music which is digestible and appealing to (especially the younger generation of) the masses. More niche genres (such as metal, which I love dearly) may eventually be lost, because there is just too much disharmony among these niches and the mainstream/mainstays, to continuously be supported and reflected in what I perceive to be the likely general motion towards mass conformity (in many ways it will be for the sake of the preservation of humanity).

Thus, I do imagine the far future to be one marked by higher conformism…due to increases in industrialization, automation, etc., verisimilitude in all areas of society. I suspect there will be less individualism. The population will increase and the mass conformity and cooperation we see in the most densely populated countries like Japan, China, and India will become normal elsewhere as well. This will happen when we colonize Mars and any further colonization in space or other planets. Over time new cultures may develop which are offshoots of the present culture.

Some arts may die out and new ones may emerge. Computers may kill art in some ways while opening up new forms of expression within virtual worlds. Virtual game and simulated world designs will become a higher form of art. Again, electronic music may reach higher aesthetic levels. There may be distinctly new forms of Classical and Jazz music. And it’s possible metal will stay around and develop further as well. It’s hard to predict. Film will stay around for a long time, but in its traditional analog forms, it may eventually fade out as well, due to computer graphics taking over. Again, it will be very hard to predict how some things will go due to all these technological developments and necessary changes on an astronomical level.

Matthew Scillitani: On the whole, I think it’s interesting that many of the responses to the prompt were mainly focused on or included notes on technology or the environment. There were much fewer political, religious, and other miscellaneous lifestyle answers than I would have expected.

Comments to Claus Volko: you closed with the statement, “Either man will succeed or parish.” This was in relation to fighting climate change. Based on our current trajectory, do you think we will successfully overcome climate change, or will it result in an extinction event? If successful, what would success look like: a healthier Earth or migration to a different planet such as Mars? You also spoke about how new tech is changing the way we live and how history is usually taught as a history of wars. How do you think new technology will change the nature of wars in the future?

Comments to Rick Farrar: in your middle future predictions, you predicted that there would be significant increases in average human lifespans. You went on to say that there are some potential benefits and dangers that could arise from this development. What do you think some of these potential benefits and dangers could be? In the very distant future, do you think these medical advances might lead to some form of biological immortality? As an aside, I agree with you on your comment that lab-grown meat will become very popular. My mother, who’s a vegetarian, cooked me one of those ‘fake’ burgers and I could hardly notice any difference in flavour or texture.

Comments to Rick Rosner: your opener was that people will probably be more able to avoid being manipulated in the future. Why do you think that is? I’d think that as more people rely on social media and biased news outlets to shape their beliefs the easier it will be to brainwash certain groups. Anti-vaxxers, climate-change deniers, racists, sexists, flat-earthers, and so on live in their own bubbles on the internet. As the internet gets bigger, I’d think their bubbles would grow too, and they’d just find more people with similar, delusional beliefs to feed off. Also, you made a comment about how what some a-holes call socialism is really just a guaranteed minimum wage. It seems like these a-holes want other groups to fail. Do you think this a part of human nature, Western culture, or something else? I don’t understand the reluctance to adopt an economic system where everyone meets their basic needs.

Rick Farrar: There were some quite interesting first responses from the members of this group to the topic. We had convergent and divergent views on various potential happenings. And, after reading what everyone had to say, I was pleased to be sent off in new directions of thought. I’m going to take a slightly different tack on my second response, partially due to thinking spurred by predictions/comments others made and partially because of what I see as potentially drastic effects in many areas due to the current pandemic.

It feels as though we are on a historical point of change. Perhaps short or medium term, but I don’t know. A cusp, if you will. Or at least the ingredients are there. I hate to dwell on negative potentialities, but on the other hand, I prefer to consider dangers/threats upfront. Just my way, I guess, but considering these things ahead of time gives more opportunity to reflect and perhaps to deflect them than the alternative.
But bear with me. It is not all negative. If you consider that the COVID-19 pandemic has created fear and uncertainly across so many facets of life, you also have to consider this has created a vacuum of sorts. An absence, generally speaking, of security, in everything from immediate health to wealth/economic well being to trust in everything from neighbours (social isolation) to leadership/government. Everyone is doing all they can to protect their health and the well being of their community. And to function. As I previously mentioned, those are immediate issues.
Someone far out at sea, swimming for shore, worries more about drowning than what they might have for lunch once they reach land. And that leads me into the concerns I have. On the one hand, historically, during times of fear and uncertainty, people look to strong leaders, and this can favour the rise of dictators. People want security, and if someone is charismatic and certain of themselves, people will want that certainty. Or perhaps a fearful and uncertain environment allows consolidation of power into one person, a few, or a system that does not favour the welfare of the citizenry. When people have fear, they tend to go tribal, for lack of a better way to say it. They circle around what they trust or know. Or, lacking that, around someone who claims to know. Aside from the governance issues, a couple of people in their first responses mentioned cycles, and this started some thoughts. It is interesting, isn’t it, that we often perceive life (particularly in modern times, or at least in the course of our relatively short lifetimes) as being a ‘progression’. But is it, really? There are highs and lows, and certainly some of those bounce over a long enough period that they are hard to discern easily to a casual observer in a small portion of their life. So, where am I going with this? Let’s consider economics as an example. Depending on which philosophy/model you follow, economically speaking, booms and busts follow certain trends.

And, to my limited knowledge, other trends are used by computerized trading systems for trading purposes. Other things, such as established weather trends, can help predict changes in crop yields in a general way over the long term perhaps (el nino and la nina, for example), What I am getting at is something that I am struggling to define, but it is something like this…many things we think we understand in life are based on trends that we can predict because normally only one variable or a few variables affect largely, although there are almost certainly a larger number of somewhat benign variables that contribute. The reason I am (probably somewhat poorly) going off on this tangent is to try to draw a potential parallel to what I see as potential diverse effects from the current COVID-19.

Consider several important aspects of life and that they are influenced normally by a multitude of factors. Let’s say…availability of food and water, health care, human rights, community, leadership…potentially most aspects of life. And assume that all these are affected, as I mentioned before, by a whole host of factors, many of which normally have little effect on the rapidity of how quickly the view and availability of these important things in life change. Now, change that. Subject them to a new paradigm, fear and uncertainty, which in this case is the pandemic, and suddenly the uncertainty has danger. The relative influence of the variables that effect these important aspects of life have changed. As if they have been funneled into a smaller area, circling into a pipe, if you will, and will emerge changed and toward unpredictable directions. But that is the thing. How we all react to the uncertainty. It requires perhaps a person to either have a certainty, comfort, and/or self-control of their own destiny and goals or a trust outside that toward the future.

So, enough of the negative. Worries aside, if you even put aside most of what constitutes us as a species, there is one aspect of humanity that gives me hope above all else, and that is we are fighters. We do not give up, and we have not gotten to where we are just from luck. We have gotten here because we don’t give up. And this, as much as anything gives me hope.

Rick Rosner: I had some more thoughts about the farther future. When I thought about pandemics, I didn’t think about having to sit inside for 2 weeks or more. Maybe, those who knew more knew that that was going to happen. I thought of this as sci-fi movie or post-apocalyptic terms. It is people dropping dead in the street with entire places wiped out. This thing is going to be an ongoing horrible death toll.

But not enough at any one time to disrupt most governments or societies. Enough of that, we’re talking about 60 to 80 years from now. I was watching Bernie Sanders on Bill Maher because we got a free subscription to HBO, which includes a free subscription to Bill Maher. It is on, occasionally. Bill Maher was saying in addition to needing Medicare for all. We need Americans to be healthier, so our healthcare will be less expensive. Because people will get less sick. They were agreeing on that. I was disagreeing.

Because what people are going to want and increasingly expect by 2080 extended lifespans. It will expensive, regardless. It will be more expensive if you do not take care of yourself. Even if you do take care of yourself, it will be expensive. I guess, much of what goes on at that point, at the end of the 21st century, it is people scrambling in different ways to get extra years of life.

You’ll have a dwindling number of really old Millennials, well over 100. The youngest Millennial will be 110 in 2106. You’ll have some Generation Xs still trying to maintain them. Others will start to combine with AI. Others will try to do a combination. There may be, at that point, viable cryonic suspension. Although, I tend to doubt it. I suspect other technologies will supplant it before it ever really gets going.

If I had to have one thought about that point in time, it is people scrambling to live longer using methods that are less terrible than the methods from the 2050s to the 2070s. The more effective but still not entirely reliable or entirely great. The technologies of the 22nd century to live longer or indefinitely will be much better. From the 20th and 21st century, the very old will continue to be the pretty fucked up.

If I had to have two thoughts about the end of the 21st century, it would be to bring up again that non-governmental structures will continue to grow in importance as nations, many nations, fade in their ability to address the issues of the time and other groupings of people, other incorporations of people. Other ways people come together to get their needs fulfilled will become increasingly important in comparison to turning to one’s national government to get your needs fulfilled.

Some governments will be able to roll with it. Small, flexible, forward-thinking governments of nations that don’t have or aren’t America, for instance. That don’t have huge segments of the population that are politically or evangelical welded to stupid beliefs. I always think of the Baltic countries and the Nordic countries. Finland will probably still be doing pretty well 60 years from now. Estonia, all those little countries with 3 to 5 to 7 million will be nimble. I would assume enough to hold onto their effective nationhood.

Where people in America, if our government continues to suck, or even if it gets better, it will still continue to be more lumbering and bound to large groups of idiots than the governments of progressive, small countries. People in America will have to turn elsewhere to get a lot of their needs fulfilled. It is kind of the way that everybody in Russia needs to turn to other sources because they can’t fully to their corrupt, incompetent, and inefficient government.

A government unable to fulfill much of the necessities of life. I can go on like this. But that’s the deal. People will have to form different organizations to get their needs fulfilled for 120 years. The US government from the end of the Civil War to the end of the 20th century. The US government did right by – I don’t know if I can say most of its citizens but – a large percentage of its citizens.

It failed black people in major ways. At the same time, a lot of black people have very obviously had pretty good lives in America. Anyway, the US government while shitty in some ways made it possible for a lot of people to have what they considered to be successful lives. It is becoming less able to do that.

Tor Jørgensen: [In this sequence of the group debate, I will explore more into certain topics and ask follow up questions regarding these topics, so a deeper debate can take place.] The topics I will go deeper into is listed and divided into three parts below, 1-2-3.

  1. Space travel to Mars in the near future (2020-2049) and middle future (2050-2074), with further desire to explore the planet by human presence.
  2. Future prospects for man in the near and middle future, in the development of physical and mental health, interstellar travel etc.
  3. What should the educational institutions of the future look like, and do you think these institutions can keep up with future developments in a global perspective, in near to middle future?

1. Based on the wording of the first edition of this group debate, the topic of future prospects in space travel. So, here in this context, I will consider some more concrete thoughts about space flight to the planet Mars in the middle future (2050-2074). The design of space travel has been long on the agenda, from the time back when the moon was one of the major space flight destinations and the United States’ race with Russia as to whom would become the first man to set their footprint on the moon surface kept us all nailed in front of the TV screen. The time back to when Neil Armstrong took his first steps on the moon in the summer of 69 is one of mankind’s greatest feats! Does the group think that we humans can do the same with regards to Mars, as to sending manned space travel to the planet Mars in the near to middle future? I myself now do not think space travel to Mars is in the near future, here I will correct myself from the first sequence, I see after reading up on the subject that this will probably not even happen in the middle future as well, I see now the time limit to be in the far future at best! The technology is not present yet, yes we can send probes to Mars to explore the surface environment, and a fly-by of outer planets such as the planet Pluto.

2. To the second topic of future prospects for man in the near to middle future, I see the futures development of health to be about upgrading.

Upgrading of a stronger immune system, better medicines so we can live longer and healthier lives and not have to rely on organ donors for transplants. The medical institutions of the future should be able to replaced broken down bodyparts in humans with artificial body parts. As to the general development within the medical realm, the need for extending lifespan is to be able to survive long space travels, and maybe for this reason alone. Questions to the group regarding this topic is then; are we by that fact unavoidable been drawn towards our destiny to seek out new inhabitants to secure our own survival, and by that avoiding extinction of the human race?

Also, how will the humans of the future look like, will we be a race of superhumans, that is resistant to all diseases, the pandemics of the future is no longer a problem. Will humans of the future develop more senses above the five senses we have today, maybe a sixth, seventh, or even an eighth sense or more.  How far can we stretch our minds as capacity goes?

3. In this third sequence, I will address the educational system of the future. The educational system that we have today is lacking vision in so many ways. I have now been working within the educational system for 25 years, and by that fact see that today’s education is falling behind evermore. I feel we have lost our way as education goes, maybe it was never there. The educational system of today in a large extent treats its pupils as employees in a factory with almost no future purpose of any kind. This will be a big topic to discuss at a later time, but what then about the schools of the future, the schools today are not keeping up with the development in the general society in any means. A slow system that keeps holding the traditions as an honorary banner to be lauded!

What can be done about the educational system so it can fully understand the future needs of the planet and all its content? To be able to focus on creativity to a much larger extent, to see all students as individuals and not as just a gray mass. This may be a bit harsh as to opinion goes, but the matter of fact is that a wake-up call is needed, if as I see it, that the schools of the future are to educate the next generations and the ones after that in a manner that secures the survival of mankind.

To the group: Am I wrong in my assumptions regarding a rather grim look at today’s and the possible future educational system, what can be done if anything to correct it or is it no need for correcting?

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Contributors for April 8, 2020 session: Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen. Total participants (Contributors and Observers for April 8, 2020 session):

Christian Sorenson is a Philosopher that lives in Belgium. What identifies him the most and above all is simplicity, for everything its better with “vanilla flavour.” Nevertheless, his wife disagrees and doesn’t say exactly the same, for her he is “simply complex.” Perhaps his intellectual passion is for criticism and irony, in the sense of revealing what the error hides “under the disguised of truth”, and precisely for this reason maybe detests arrogance and the mixture of ignorance with knowledge. Generally never has felt confortable in traditional academic settings since he gets impatient and demotivated with slowness, and what he considers as limits or barriers to thought. In addition, especially in the field of Philosophy, and despite counting, besides a master degree in another study area, with a doctorate in Metaphysics and Epistemology in Italy, done in twenty-four months, while talking care at that time of her small daughter, starting from bachelor’s degree, learning self-taught Italian from scratch, and obtaining as final grade “summa cum laude” (9.8)… Feels that academic degrees and post-degrees are somewhat cartoonish labels because they usually feed vanity but impoverish the love for questioning and intellectual curiosity. For him “ignorance is always infinite and eternal” while “knowledge is finite and limited”. What he likes the most in his leisure time, is to go for a walk, to travel with his wife and “sybaritically enjoy” her marvellous cooking. IQ on the WAIS-R (Weschler Intelligence Scale), 185+ (S.D. 15); Test date: November, 2017. High IQ Societies: Triple Nine Society, World Genius Directory, and several others.

Claus Volko is an Austrian computer and medical scientist who has conducted research on the treatment of cancer and severe mental disorders by conversion of stress hormones into immunity hormones. This research gave birth to a new scientific paradigm which he called “symbiont conversion theory”: methods to convert cells exhibiting parasitic behavior to cells that act as symbionts. In 2013 Volko, obtained an IQ score of 172 on the Equally Normed Numerical Derivation Test. He is also the founder and president of Prudentia High IQ Society, a society for people with an IQ of 140 or higher, preferably academics.

Dionysios Maroudas was born in 1986. He lives in Athens. He has a passion for mathematics, photography, reading, and human behaviour. He is a member of the ISI-Society, Mensa, Grand IQ Society (Grand Member), and THIS (Distinguished Member)

Erik Haereid has been a member of Mensa since 2013, and is among the top scorers on several of the most credible IQ-tests in the unstandardized HRT-environment. He is listed in the World Genius Directory. He is also a member of several other high IQ Societies. Erik, born in 1963, grew up in OsloNorway, in a middle-class home at Grefsen nearby the forest, and started early running and cross country skiing. After finishing schools he studied mathematics, statistics and actuarial science at the University of Oslo. One of his first glimpses of math-skills appeared after he got a perfect score as the only student on a five hour math exam in high school.

HanKyung Lee is a Medical Doctor and the Founder of the United Sigma Intelligence Association, formerly United Sigma Korea. He lives and works in South Korea. He earned an M.D. at Eulji University. He won the Culture Fair Numerical and Spatial Examination-CFNSE international competition conducted by Etienne Forsstrom. Also, he scored highly on the C-09 of Experimental Psychologist. He did achieve a 5-sigma score on a spatial intelligence test created by Dr. Jonathan Wai. He is a member of OLYMPIQ Society.

Kirk Kirkpatrick earned a score at 185, near the top of the World Genius Directory, on a mainstream IQ test, the Stanford-Binet.

James Gordon is an independent/freelancer from the USA. He first entered into OATH Society, while completing his MFA in Creative Writing at Adelphi University, New York in 2010. Since then, he has taken over 100 high range tests, and is among the top scorers on numerous tests. He has also co-authored two exams (with Michael Lunardini and Enrico Pretini); he and Lunardini have another in production. He has worked in education and mental health. His struggle, through and beyond his own mental illness and substance use disorder, has led to a unique and earnest outlook on life. He strives to bring the wisdom gained from his experiences into the picture to enrich others’ lives. His hobbies include skiing, lifting weights, video games, and films. He is also a skilled amateur writer, and virtuoso pianist/guitarist. He lives in Seattle, WA with his wife, and plans to soon start a family.

Laurent Dubois is an Independent IQ test creator. On his website, he, about the 916 test, states the potential submission qualification for a large number of high-IQ societies, “WAHIP, the High IQ Society for the disabled, the Altacapacidadhispana, the SIGMA, the SMARTS, the The Mind Society, the Top One Percent Society, the Elateneos, the EXISTENTIA, the Artifex Mens Congregatio, the Neurocubo, the GLIA, the Milenija, the ISI-S, the Introspective High IQ Society, the Camp Archimedes, the PLATINUM and the PARS Societies, and potentially for several other societies (Cerebrals, Glia, Poetic Genius, Pi, Mega…).” That is, he constructs tests respected by many.

Marco Ripà is an extremely skilled problem solver working as a freelance content creator and a personal branding consultant in Rome; his homonym YouTube channel (160k subscribers) is focused on logics, mathematics and creative thinking. He initially studied physics but he gained a first class degree in economics. Author of books plus several peer-reviewed papers in mathematics (graph theory, congruences, combinatorics, primality problems) and experimental psychology (articles published in Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics, International Journal of Mathematical Archive, Rudi Mathematici, Matematicamente.it Magazine, Educational Research, IQNexus Magazine and the WIN ONE), he is the father of 70+ integer sequences listed in the OEIS.

Matthew Scillitani, member of the Glia SocietyGiga SocietyESOTERIQ SocietyThe Core, and the Hall of Sophia, is a web developer and SEO specialist living in North Carolina. He is of Italian and British lineage, and is predominantly English-speaking. He earned his bachelor’s degree in psychology at East Carolina University, with a focus on neurobiology and a minor in business marketing. He’s previously worked as a research psychologist, data analyst, and writer, publishing over three hundred papers on topics such as nutrition, fitness, psychology, neuroscience, free will, and Greek history. You may contact him via e-mail at mattscil@gmail.com.

Mislav Predavec is a Mathematics Professor in Croatia. Since 2009, he has taught at  the Schola Medica Zagrabiensis in Zagreb, Croatia. He is listed on the World Genius Director with an IQ of 192 (S.D. 15). Also, he runs the trading company Preminis. He considers profoundly high-IQ tests a favourite hobby.

Richard Sheen is a young independent artist, philosopher, photographer and theologian based in New Zealand. He has studied at Tsinghua University of China and The University of Auckland in New Zealand, and holds degrees in Philosophy and Theological Studies. Originally raised atheist but later came to Christianity, Richard is dedicated to the efforts of human rights and equality, nature conservation, mental health, and to bridge the gap of understanding between the secular and the religious. Richard’s research efforts primarily focus on the epistemic and doxastic frameworks of theism and atheism, the foundations of rational theism and reasonable faith in God, the moral and practical implications of these frameworks of understanding, and the rebuttal of biased and irrational understandings and worship of God. He seeks to reconcile the apparent conflict between science and religion, and to find solutions to problems facing our environmental, societal and existential circumstances as human beings with love and integrity. Richard is also a proponent for healthy, sustainable and eco-friendly lifestyles, and was a frequent participant in competitive sports, fitness training, and strategy gaming. Richard holds publications and awards from Mensa New Zealand and The University of Auckland.

Rick Farrar holds a Bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from the University of Arkansas with additional work performed toward a Master’s degree in environmental engineering. He currently works with environmental compliance and reporting for a small oil refinery in Alaska. Rick’s outside interests include language learning (currently immersed in Greek) , traveling, music/singing, and traditional do-it-yourself type skills. His most recent IQ test activity was with the PatNum test, 18/18, 172 S.D. 15, by James Dorsey.

Rick G. Rosner, according to some semi-reputable sources gathered in a listing here, may have among America’s, North America’s, and the world’s highest measured IQs at or above 190 (S.D. 15)/196 (S.D. 16) based on several high range test performances created by Christopher HardingJason BettsPaul Cooijmans, and Ronald Hoeflin. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writers Guild Awards and Emmy nominations, and was titled 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Directory with the main “Genius” listing here.

Sandra Schlick has the expertise and interest in Managing Mathematics, Statistics, and Methodology for Business Engineers while having a focus on online training. She supervises M.Sc. theses in Business Information and D.B.A. theses in Business Management. Managing Mathematics, Statistics, Methodology for Business Engineers with a focus on online training. Her areas of competence can be seen in the “Competency Map.” That is to say, her areas of expertise and experience mapped in a visualization presentation. Schlick’s affiliations are the Fernfachhochschule Schweiz: University of Applied Sciences, the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, the Kalaidos University of Applied Sciences, and AKAD.

Tiberiu Sammak is a 24-year-old guy who currently lives in Bucharest. He spent most of his childhood and teenage years surfing the Internet (mostly searching things of interest) and playing video games. One of his hobbies used to be the construction of paper airplanes, spending a couple of years designing and trying to perfect different types of paper aircrafts. Academically, he never really excelled at anything. In fact, his high school record was rather poor. Some of his current interests include cosmology, medicine and cryonics. His highest score on an experimental high-range I.Q. test is 187 S.D. 15, achieved on Paul Cooijmans’ Reason – Revision 2008.

Tim Roberts is the Founder/Administrator of Unsolved Problems. He scored 45/48 on the legendary Titan Test.

Tom Chittenden is an Omega Society Fellow. Also, he is the Chief Data Science Officer/Founding Director at Advanced Artificial Intelligence Research Laboratory and WuXi NextCODE Genomics.

Tonny Sellén scored 172 (S.D. 15) of the GENE Verbal III. He is a Member of the World Genius Directory.

Tor Arne Jørgensen is a member of 50+ high IQ societies, including World Genius Directory, NOUS High IQ Society, 6N High IQ Society just to name a few. He has several IQ scores above 160+ sd15 among high range tests like Gift/Gene Verbal, Gift/Gene Numerical of Iakovos Koukas and Lexiq of Soulios. His further interests are related to intelligence, creativity, education developing regarding gifted students, and his love for history in general, mainly around the time period of the 19th century to the 20th century. Tor Arne works as a teacher at high school level with subjects as; History, Religion, and Social Studies.

[2] Individual Publication Date: April 1, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-two; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, and Tor Jørgensen (Part Two) [Online].April 1 2020; 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-two.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, April 1). Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner,  and Tor Jørgensen (Part Two)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-two.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, and Tor Jørgensen (Part Two). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A, April. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-two>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, and Tor Jørgensen (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-two.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, and Tor Jørgensen (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A (April 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-two.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, and Tor Jørgensen (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-two>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, and Tor Jørgensen (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-two.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, and Tor Jørgensen (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 22.A (2020):April. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-two>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, and Tor Jørgensen (Part Two) [Internet]. (2020, April 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-two.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: